Right, thanks. Now: common mistakes??
 

Shawn Coyle:
I don't think anybody answered your question on R22 EOL's to hard surfaces; so, IME, that's the ONLY way they do them, except perhaps under the rare conditions when the ship won't slide. My counter-question: is there a substantial percentage of Non-R22 EOL practice to turf or dirt or (what else is soft?)?

(The widespread doctrine in f/w retractables is DO NOT, EVER, make a gear up landing on soft surfaces, for they tend to roll up under the belly and total the airframe, whereas hard (smooth) surfaces only grind off the lowest 1" of metal, which can be replaced.)

=====
Thomas coupling:
Thanks for the reassurance, maybe the crunch frequency is different in R22's; sounds like military pilots get MUCH more EOL practice than civilian!

However, I haven't given up on getting somebody to list major mistakes low-timers make; you mentioned also the difficulty of success because of wind, altitude, speed, surface, reaction time, D/N and adrenaline. To simplify discussion, let's discard wind (assume calm), specify LOTS of altitude (1000' AGL, so the descent is stabilized), hard smooth surface (spacious asphalt/concrete ), Nr stable 'til flare, Daytime, nerves of steel (no extra adrenaline).

Now what? If the Heli-rated solo pilot has these things all set & taken care of, what does he do WRONG most commonly that causes damage/injury? (That is, assuming it's largely a civilian pilot problem, where are the CFI's falling short in training emphasis?)

I realize you quit doing instruction some years back, and it was military equipment--given that, what flare-to-touchdown errors on the part of the student were you most alert for because the greatest number of students tried to destroy the aircraft with them? How can I most effectively focus my students' attention on the skills they need?

(Don't get me wrong, I do have a syllabus covering these topics--but I'm always looking for enhancements.)

I did a few thousand EOls in the R22 (without the needles synchronised) back in the old ab-initio instructing days. Aircraft undamaged (honestly:D )
As for engine failures; never had one for real in a single, but had a couple in twins, which is why I always do autos to a flare and power recovery in twins on an OPC. :D

SAS and anyone else

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that it is possible to land the UH-1, cut the throttles, then lift the collective and there is enough inertia in the blades to lift the heli into the hover, yaw through 180 and land it again as smoothly as normal.

Question 1 - Do you know if this is this true?

Question 2 - Do you (or anyone else) think this make EOLs in a "big machine" less daunting and safer than in, say an R22, with a low inertia blade?

PS My biggest worry regarding real autos in the R22 is not the bit at the bottom but getting the lever down in the 1. something seconds that you need to!!!!

To give you an idea of the available intertia at the bottom in a Bell 47 EOL, I was recently told by an ex AAC instructor that the 'show-off' exercise to give students an idea of how much they had to play with, was:

EOL to a marked spot, lift off turn 90 degrees, move three yards, put her down again, lift off, turn, etc. with the challenge to complete all four corners of the square.

Not many made the fourth, but it was possible!

I'm sure this isn't a myth, as another AAC instructor told me the same story.

All very impressive, but with hydraulics engine driven (not off the transmission), there's no such thing as a practice for real....

NigD2,

Flare, flare and flare. Wait 5 seconds then lower the lever and you will still be flying in a R22. The RRPM can still be recovered as low as 75% possibilly lower. Not seen it below 80% myself.

PS. Don't try this at home.

Helo Teacher:
I'm afraid I'm a lot less sanguine than you about pilots' ability to get into autorotation after a sudden and complete engine failure in an R22.
In the case of a partial or gradual engine failure I'm sure there would be few problems, but where something like carb icing turns the engine off like a light, especially in the climb, I'm simply not convinced that the average person's recognition processes/reaction time are up to the job.
As to the engine-off landing, look at it this way. 1800 fpm is about 20mph. Even if you don't lift a finger, by the time the skids have splayed and the crumble zone has concertina-ed you're not looking at deadly force.
Once again, I'm talking about the R22 here. I'd happily zero-zero a 206 from 100 feet at 30 knots in the climb.

A brilliant man called Geof Day, on one of my annuals showed me just how far you can take the R22, being still full of the pages of every Heliflying book available I can tell you i thought I could pee faster than the rotor was going round, and still being here proves that it taught me a very good lesson, and just how long 5 seconds are :eek:

Don't stop now, vfrpilotpb--tell us the story!!
 

Tantalizing post, that!

Just how far DID Geof take the R22? Inquiring minds want to know!

Yes we'd all like to know about low rotor speed experiments, but I am REAL suspicious of experienced pilots who are able to take an aircraft to an extreme that is outside the normal operating envelope of the POE.

Yes, I have seen a Robinson factory test pilot take the RPM of an R22 low enough to widen my old eyes but they also know at which point the boom chop occurs from their flight test and computer simulation data. They are thus able to avoid it.

If a totally competent flight instructor chooses to explore the flight envelope beyond where the factory has gone, then he will one day find the aircraft's limitation by trial and error. And then it will be too late.

Please folks, let's not get into macho contests to see who has gone further than the next guy (And it is usually guys who do this stuff...) with his particular machine. Big cohones make big holes in the ground.

The Real Thing........
 

Just read an interesting and relevant story from a book Called " Helicopters Will Take You Anywhere" written by Ron Newman, a well known and highly respected Australian Instructor..........[No not related to myself].....on page 136 he writes....

"Anyone who has had an engine failure at high power will tell you that the RPM decay and the yaw in a real engine failure are far greater than when simulating an engine failure by rolling off the throttle.

It doesn't matter how quickly you snap the throttle closed, it is still a gradual power reduction compared to an engine failure, particularly in a turbine engine where the turbine has to wind down from over 30,000 RPM.

I had a throttle cable jam at climb power in a Hughes 300 on a training flight, and as I couldn't lower the collective without causing an "overspeed" I had to continue climbing as I returned to the airport. By the time I reached the airport I had climbed to 4500' and at this point I got the student to pull the mixture out.

I have done thousands of practice autorotations but the severity of the yaw surprised me, and yet I knew it was coming"


Chaps, we are just practicing with one arm behind our back. If you are serious about teaching Engine Off's to the ground!!!!..............then do as the earlier posting suggested..........pull out the mixture or turn off the fuel...............

Only then are you serious.


Otherwise you are giving only false confidence..........

...may I also suggest that for realism, you set out on a two-hour cross country on a warm, soporific day where nothing happens for the first 90 minutes, and however hard you try to concentrate your mind wanders to the business you're heading for...
then when the engine catches you out the blades will be clapping over your head before you can say goodnight nurse.
PS: Old Bill Barrell, who died of natural causes, once took the rrpm down below 80 percent on me "as a demonstration" and despite his track record and the fact that we were halfway through the FI course I told him I'd refuse to fly with him if he did it again.

OK, How' bout some stats...!
 

NASA did a detailed study, published in 2000, on acidents between 1963 and 1997 in USA.

Of the 8,436 accidents recorded by the NTSB, 5,371 involved commercially produced single piston helicopters. Now here's the kicker - of those 5,371 accidents, 1,554 or around 30% were attributed to loss of power. Virtually every one of the 1,554 loss of engine power accidents ended in the helicopter being destroyed or substantially damaged.

They say in the narrative: "Therefore, the fact that power-off landing proficiency is not required by the FAA to obtain a helicopter pilot's licence certification appears inconsistent with the number of accidents." They go further to say that "...it also appears that helicopters currently in the civil fleet provide marginal to inadequate autorotational capability for the average pilot to successfully complete the final flare and touchdown to a generally unsuitable site. Clearly, training in full autorotational landings - even to a prepared landing site - is avoided becase of real and perceived risks."

Seems to be pretty strong statistical evidence that pilots are consistently crashing as a result of engine failure. The authors of the study draw the conclusion that the bottom of the auto is entirely to blame, but I would say there must be some accidents in there that were caused by a slow reaction to the engine failure, with the obvious results.

The final quote above is also very interesting, because they seem to be saying that even in the face of obvious evidence that pilots consistently crash at the bottom of an auto, there is resistance to teaching the exercise because of "...real and perceived risks.

SASless, the US did avidly teach touchdown auto's, but during the Vietnam period when many pilots were needed very quickly, they discovered that the acident rate during training was way too high - so they stopped it. I don't however, think that the sausage factory of Vietnam era training applies to the situation now.

By the way; of the 5,371 single piston accidents, 18% involved instruction.

Anyway folks, there are some stats - what do you reckon??:}

I think I will continue to avoid the R22!

EOLs should be a regular part of training - 2-3 at the end of every dual trip from the begining. Obviously the early flights will be demos until later in the training. By the time GFTs are in sight the instructor should feel confident in the student's ability and the student should by then have become confident in this exercise so it is no longer a "big deal".

Simulated engine failure should also be practised more than once on every dual trip. Gradually the "surprise" factor should be introduced until the student knows that if his hand is off the collective........

If you do not feel comfortable about EOLs you should not be flying a helicopter and certainly not with pax.

Having spent several years as an ab-initio instructor, I've had experience of some of the more adrenalin raising moments in life, especially on low-inertia rotor types.
The first of these was during a practise engine failure during the climbout. As I started to partially roll the throttle back on the student the engine cut-out completely and we had an exciting moment or two during the 400 feet left between ourselves and the ground. All went well on this occasion but the schools procedure regarding carb heat setting for climbout was adjusted as a consequence.
The second was far more exciting when, during a practise EOL (with the throttle wound back to idle) the student was thrown by some windsheer at low level. As I reached for the cyclic and was about to say those immortal words "I have control" the student flared with such force on the cyclic that he nearly broke my thumb. Unfortunately, he also managed to push the tail rotor straight through the ground culminating in not much of the machine being left in one piece. Neither one of us was hurt, at least not physically.......
Having said all that, I continued for several more years teaching students and ensuring that they conducted many EOLs.
As far as I am concerned, the ability to carry out EOLs succesfully is paramount for any would be helicopter pilot as nothing can better prepare a pilot for the real thing than doing if for real, or at least as real as possible.

As for the training accident...... I would far rather fly with a pilot who has been through some sort of real emergency in his/her formative training than to fly with one who has never had such an experience. Not that I am suggesting that everybody should go out there and smash up a machine during their training!! I just think that going through something for real tends to impart a whole new respect for the dangers of flying.

Squiffy: The NASA study is of limited value unless it differentiates between EOLs where auotorotation was established, and EOLs where it was not.
That's the nub of the matter.

There's a very sage article by Derek Jones on R22 training in the latest edition of AOPA's 'General Aviation' magazine. The bottom line for him on EOLs is that they are 'better...demonstrated from an early stage and later practice the relatively simpler gentle single flare to a run-on landing with at least ten knots of wind through the disc.'
AND FINALLY...
At risk of repeating what I've said on other threads before, PLEASE do not try experimenting with anything contrary to limitations or advice in the helicopter Flight Manual. If you deliberately go right to the edge you may fall over. Those of us who do this for a living have been extensively trained to do so and work in a highly risk-managed environment.

I taught in the U.S. Army sixteen years before the moratorium on touchdown emergency procedures and, subsequent halt of those in all but approved schools. Didn't do TD autos again till I began training civilians.

I will never believe there is any argument or philosophy that replaces the benefit for touchdown autos. We did day straight-in, turning and, low-level (entry alt of 50') autos to the ground. Both hard surface and sod (I prefer sod). We did night straight-in autos to touch down. During the period of time that the "Night Hawk" phase was taught before NVG training, we did night autos with out landing lights.

If EOL training doesn't provide anything else, it provides the confidence that prevents greater than necessary apprehension and, errors comming from that apprehenson.

With out exaggeration, I don't know how many hundreds touchdown autos I've done in H269A's, OH-58's and, UH-1's and, I believe, with out question, that every EOL can be done safely if the instructor will only remember to only do them on the days the conditions will allow (yes, engines quit on bad days but, we have to accept that we can only teach so much), do them to a good surface and, be there for the whole maneuver (if the instructor isn't up to speed for the maneuver or, can't recognize the need to recover when things MIGHT be starting to go bad, he shouldn't be in the maneuver).

Two last points:

The qualification for stopping touchdown emergency procedures training in units was that the accident rate went down dramatically during the moratorium on touchdown emergency procedures training. (Read as: the child birth rate drops dramatically among women who enter convents)

The qualification for teaching EOL's is the rate of unsuccessful completions of actual EOL's as given above.

MY opinions, and happy to have em.

What-ho Squiffy wrote:

Yeah? Big deal. What was the fatality rate? Except for the insurance company, who really cares if the aircraft gets destroyed after a loss of power?

Let's not lose focus. The really important figure (the one omitted) is the one that tells us how many people died as a result of those botched autos.

I've been following this thread with great interest and decided as a result, to dust off the old instructor and go for a spot of EOL's to the ground revision. I continuously practice Auto's whenever I fly with suitably qualified passengers, with a recovery on the chosed spot.

The first one was a bit messy with a long ish run on - certainly survivable. The second got better - and after the 8th or 9th I was like an old pro.

I figure that if the entry's OK, and the needles are where thay should be. Providing the flare's put in at the bottom, everyone should walk away, even if the thing rolls.

The hard bit I think, is putting it where you want it to end up.
Moral of the story: "Training is for when things go wrong, and being in a position to put it right"

In skid-equipped helicopters, there is a feeling that doing touchdowns on grass or sod is easier on the aircraft than landing on paved, hard surfaces.
Ain't necessarily so.
While it may be quieter, and appear to have a softer landing on grass than on pavement, consider:
a) the skids don't have a chance to flex as the load is transferred from the rotor to the skids - on grass the skids dig a trench and can't move, so the cross tube can only flex in the area between the mounts (Bell series anyway). This eventually leads to failure of the crosstube, but is also evident in those helicopters doing lots of autorotation touchdowns on grass having the tail lower to the ground.
b) if there is any misalignment between the direction you're pointing and the direction of flight, on grass this can cause the helicopter to be aligned pretty forcefully in the direction of flight - a pretty good cause for things like pylon whirl on the 206 series, as the transmission is free to rock from side to side. On paved surfaces you just slide with some misalignment, which can be easily corrected with pedals if you were worried about it.
c) the grass has a pretty high coefficient of friction, and as the skids are well below the CG, this can cause the helicopter to decelerate more quickly than you may wish- and possibly nose over. On paved surfaces, you decelerate rather gently, but with slightly more noise.
d) grass tends to be more uneven, aggrevating c) above.
The only small problem with landings on paved hard surfaces is that you wear out skid shoes more quickly. Get the improved skid shoes (good for several thousand touchdowns) and learn to accept the noise.
The only times I've ever had problems with the touchdown was on grass. There must be a good reason why Bell Helicopter on does touchdowns at their training school on pavement.

Happy Landings!
 

Never had the donkey quit on me yet, but I'm VERY confident I'd get it on the ground in one piece cos - like you I suspect - I was taught engine offs to the ground from day one. Yes, there was plenty of 500ft recoveries in the local area, but every other landing I ever made during training was to the ground.
Reference Shaun's grass-v-tarmac thing, above, I also got to do high speed powered run-ons on smooth concrete in a range of MD's at the factory as part of some type training, and I can tell you nothing builds confidence like actually hitting the ground again and again and again. Get some in, I say!

Dan the Man
 

Dan,

Your beginning to worry me,

Next time you use one of my machines, I'll come with you !

Quite right though. So you knacker the cross tube, So what. That can be replaced.

eothg.
 

I am not very good at this lark, currently, maybe from what I have read in 5000 hours I will be ok, however, with my 20 odd hours and about 8 engine off landings to the ground, I will tell you of my experiences, first time, "that is mad!!!!" second time "ok let me try" third time "mmmm,I do not think I could do that." ect ect 7th time " I think i could do this" 8th time " Maybe not" Anyway, I feel a lot more confident of my instructors ( mad as they are ) and I hope that one day I could save my aircraft, myself and my passengers because of this early training.
p.s A test pilot in the H500 I was learning in said quite clearly to me, "engine off " I said "what did you say" he said "never mind"
i.e I am dead.

Shawn Coyle
 

Oh..how wrong you can be..............

Try landing a heavy [or light] B412 / 212 on the summer tarmacs of the mid west....

The skids do indeed indent and spread the hot soft black bitumen.....and we were just landing for refueling......and cost our owner heaps of $$$$ in tarmac repairs.

Yet alone if we hit the runway surface with some downward vertical force and slid a few yards or so!!!................many more $$$$$

[However I do understand your point........landing on a hard surface is smart and less painful]


But of course the BHT School use Tungsten Carbide shoes on their skids to slide on their prepared hard surfaces.........no one elese has the luxury of knowing where and when their emergency landing will occur.......thats only training not reality.


However, please don't misunderstand my comments.........all OEL or NEL should be made to the hard runway ....if possible!!!!

EOLs
 

EOLs, or as we say Touch down autos. Quite honestly, I am not convinced of the argument that they are necessary. The skill is conducting Practice Forced Landing (PFL) ie positioning the aircraft "into the hole in the trees". The other skill necessary is to make the landing survivorable once there. These actions can be trained with power terms (practicing when to commence the flare and at what rate). The fact that you intial (pitch pull) a little high/low or overlevel or touch down cocked off -who cares? If you can't make your spot its all a waste of time.

This is the standard that is accepted in the military with highly trained proffesional pilots. I would be suprised if your average Joe civvy would have the capacity to develop skill sets to be consistently touching down without assistance. And if they do concentrate on that limited aspect of the touch down what about all the other stuff associated with positioning the aircraft.

I would fail a guy in a heartbeat if he couldn't get within 2-3 aircraft lengths of the touch down point. If he overleveled or I needed to take over at the pitch pull - I don't give a rats ar.e.

As for skidways. They are more forgiving but my experience with the US army is that they have a poor habit (negative habit transfer) of lowering the lever on touch down. It makes you stop expeditiously but we had one Sepo exchange guy damage one of our aircraft (even after being here for a couple of years) because he lowered the lever on "sod".

Oh! Oh!

Reading all the previous letters I see that there are two fields of opinion, those in favour and those against, obviously.

For those who avoid making EOLs you could well be placed in the position of answering to a court why your student was not capable of reaching the minumum standard of licensing upon attaining the PPL. If 50 hours is not enough then I sugest that more hours are required by that student. As an instructor you have the 'duty' to perform as an instructor to the requirements of the syllabus as laid down in whichever authority you are operating. If you are unconfortable doing engine off landings then I can only suggest that yiou requalify after suitable retraining.
The R22 is a poor training helicopter as there are numerous limitations in regard to safety to which as an instructor you ought to be able to 'tune' your EOL's so that the EOL is safely conducted. I say 'tune' as a way of deciding the best weight/weather/ground conditions to best attain confident and contro;;ed landings. I do not believe that closing the engine down completely is necessary, sufficien that the throttle is closed to ground idle/idle once the area of the landing can be safely reached.
It amazes me that students are given the impression that all they require is 50 hours flying time to attain their PPL/H. How on earth can anyone know whether that prospective student has the ability to achieve that goal. I suspect that the training for EOL's is avoided until far too late in the training sequence to give confident handling at the Flight Test stage. I would recommend that instructors feed in EOL's at regular intervals and certainly before the students first solo. OK at this stage the student has only 'followed through' but should have the method in mind should things go quiet during the first solo.
Experienced instructors ought to be able to perform EOL's onto grass surfaces within the sloping ground limitations of the type of helicopter flown.
It's all to do with training and technique.
For those making regular EOL's with their students, I commend you and would feel safer with their students flying me.

posted 17th February 2003 15:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh! Oh!



For those who avoid making EOLs you could well be placed in the position of answering to a court why your student was not capable of reaching the minumum standard of licensing upon attaining the PPL.

SURELY THE ONUS IS ON THE EXAMINER NOT THE BRAND NEW AFIC OR FI(R) AS IT IS NOW.

Tail Bloater has hit the nail on the head.
Going through the motions of an EOL is like nearly having sex, you haven't done it so you don't know what it feels like and you don't know how the machine reacts and you don't know how to react to it.
Learning to autorotate with a power recovery is fine, but is NO substitute for learning to land the machine with no engine power available whether on grass or a hard surface ( never done that one..too loud!).
How many people do you know that have never even put on full brakes in their car ( emergency stop) and when they have to CAN'T!! and that happens every day to thousands of people.

If a flying instuctor does not even feel comfortable doing EOL's then I question his/her right to be one....sorry.

How can that possible be?! The duty of the examiner is to examine, to decide if the candidate under test is able to perform to the required standard for the issue of the PPL(H).
It is the duty of the instructor to advise his/her student whether they have reached that standard after the MINIMUM 50 hours requirement or whether they require further training. After all, the instructor's job is not just to teach soemthing parrot fashion, but to evaluate the student's performance and make judgements as to what additional training is required. If the instructor can't do that, then how can the student know how he/she is progressing? The examiner only comes in to the picture after the instructor is satisfied that the student has reached the required standardv and is ready for the flight test.
I also agree with Tail Bloater that EOL's should be introduced as early as possible in the course. I would not allow a student to go solo unless I was confident of his/her ability to be able to get the aircraft to a point where the landing should be survivable (albeit with the aircraft written off) as that is my duty to my student.

EOL's............THE SPORT OF KINGS

I currently teach EOLs at CFS Shawbury. Experienced (2000+) pilots go solo EOLs after approx 3hrs concentrated practice. They can hit a large field easily, but would struggle to make a nominated point consistently. Basic students? By the end of the course I have a checklist- 50/50 if they make nominated field + If they flare at the right height. 80/20 if they check the lever at a sensible height. !00% if they level and cushion. ie a sensible flare increases survivability by a huge margin. The rest? Panic, shock, disbelief, etc etc will erode a lot of their instinct and training, however we must still do the training to give pilots every chance. Teaching EOLs is fantastic, if instructors don't want to do it- quit now!

Regular practice is key. I used to do ab-initio and commercial instruction, checking and testing on light singles of various types. Never forgetting the reality that we were throwing the beast at the ground, I used to get a real buzz from being able to demo and teach these. I also think it gave me a level of competence and confidence in being able to deal with an engine failure which helped my general flying.

I have now "progressed" to just flying twins and (apart from 6 monthly checks) doing only line flying with no opportunity to drop in the odd auto even. I really feel out of touch and am now relying on the very low probability of double engine failure. I can't even go and do some single engine stuff for fun, cos I am tied into a Flight Time Scheme that precludes me from doing other flying. A positive contribution to flight safety- I think not. :(

TC reminded me of this with his reminiscences.

Enjoy them while you can! :D

Hi there all of you!
I'm currently teaching in Canada, where we are required to teach full-ons, but it really is up to the examiner to decide if he wants a full on demonstrated. I have finally gotten back into the habit of doing them all the way, and I really think they will give the student the edge needed to survive or even save the aircraft in a sticky situation (when the donkey leaves). However, I'm more than reluctant to send my 100 hr. student out with the examiner, regardles of the examiners experience, since he does not regularly fly "my" machine. Now I only have one machine, and with about 1000 hrs in it, I know fairly well what it does, but why should I let this fresh new student and the examiner out to do touchdowns in my only machine. Only last year did Transport Canada and a student roll a machine on a flight test, yet they still want them done on flight tests. I agree with all of you that these should be thaught to students, but personnally I'm never far off the controls during this, because I've personnally seen the end result of botched full ons.

Anyhow, this is just my opinion, and I realize this is not much of a pot stirrer, I enjoy reading all these threads, they give me (as an instructor) a lot of insight.

Shawn Coyle
Love your book (art and science...)
and would really love to come out to Mojave to do the Test pilot program, but then there is money...

Winnie, I apologise. Never really thought about the aircraft owners, us military types are spoiled with a hangar full to bend. Difficult one really, pity the examining board didn't have to provide the machine. I wonder if they would change the rules then................

Winnie,

We have a similar problem in the UK with the R22. Examiners for the PPL(H) can be any Flight Examiner (type rated and in practice of course). Most significant schools have such a bod either on the staff or known to them. He is current on the R22 and is in the mainstream of ab-initio instruction, so no problem.

Unfortunately, the CAA insist that, for the commercial flight test, a CAA staff examiner is used. You don't get to choose. For a while this was pretty much always one person. Although this person had significant experience, it did not include R22 flying or instruction of ab-initio civi students. A number of R22s have been damaged during flight test EOLS with him as the PIC. Indeed, I have been told that one school has simply banned him from testing on their aircraft.

Looking further back into the past, there was a similar spate of damage accidents with another CAA staff examiner.

Currency and recent practice is key, no matter who you are.

The JAR FCL flight test list is clear that EOL "touchdowns" are a requirement for a licence issue flight test and indeed for the licence proficiency check (on singles). I don't think this is wrong myself, but I do think it is wrong for any pilot to undertake a flight exercise as PIC when he is not current and in practice himself, no matter who he works for.

No names, no pack drill.

Depends on who you get to fly with on your commercial flight test. I had an ex-military bod, who tested me to the extent that he thought I was safe and competent to fly as a commercial pilot.

I was lucky. Any other examiner would have tested me longer, most likely with the same result. I think my school would have been happy with whatever my examiner had asked me to do - but then I've had similar feedback about this gent from other sources as well.

eol
 

any more to add to this thread folks??:confused:

Check out the thread on the forced landing at the Finke Desert Race

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=134077

The company trains with full touch down autos and the pilot in this case is damned happy that this wasn't his first try.

We teach full touch down autos to every student before we send them solo. There is no requirement in the USA for touch down autos, except CFI, but it makes sense to us to teach them. We are confident that all our students would make a reasonable job of it of the engine quits.

Of course, we fly Bell 47's so it is a bit of a non event.

Regards,

Chopperpilot47

In my flight training we did every autorotation, regardless of if it was straight in or 180, in all wind conditions right to the ground. I'm very glad I did becuase alot happenes after the flare. A wise instructor once said, "if you arent going to make it, **** the spot, do a good auto" and I wouldn't understand that if I only knew how to get it to the flare.

My first job started with a check ride and an auto right to the ground. I got the job and others didn't. That should be reason enough alone.